tokportal_generate_warming_terms

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the tool is free and does not charge credits, and clarifies the input size limit (max 1000 characters). Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint: false (mutation) and destructiveHint: false, so the description provides useful cost and constraint context. However, it does not describe the output structure or error behaviors, and the return format is implied but not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds constraints and cost, and the third provides actionable downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, input constraints, platforms, cost, and how to use the result. It omits the format of the generated terms (e.g., list of strings) but provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly and pipeline the output. Sibling tools are many but not directly relevant, and the description sufficiently orients the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (text, count, platform, idempotency_key). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, restating the text limitation and platform context. Per the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of parameters significantly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates Advanced Niche Warming search terms from a free-text niche description, specifying the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'Advanced Niche Warming search terms'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on niche target generation and explicitly linking to downstream endpoints like advanced_warming_terms and search_terms, which are absent in other sibling names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool by stating the output should be passed to 'advanced_warming_terms' or 'search_terms' for specific workflows (bundle creation, rewarm). It also notes the platforms (tiktok, instagram). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like tokportal_configure_bundle_warming_terms, leaving some room for ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.